Skip to main content

Digital Trends may earn a commission when you buy through links on our site. Why trust us?

Six-year-old AMD GPU smokes Nvidia’s new GTX 1630 by more than double

Nvidia quietly released the GTX 1630 on Tuesday, following a reported delay at the end of May. The card, which is around $150 and built on the older Turing architecture, won’t be making it into our roundup of the best graphics cards, though. Early reviews show that even the six-year old RX 470 beats the GTX 1630 by as much as 52%.

It’s a dire situation for Nvidia’s new GPU. Guru3D’s review of the Palit GTX 1630 4GB Dual showed that the card sits at the bottom in every benchmark. And that’s not just against the latest graphics cards. In Far Cry 6, for example, the GTX 1630 was beaten by Nvidia’s GTX 1650 Super by a massive 64% at 1080p. AMD’s RX 470, which is twice as old as the GTX 1650 Super, won out by 52%.

MSI's custom GTX 1630 graphics card.
MSI

TechPowerUp reported even worse results, with the GTX 1630 rendering only 14.8 fps in Dying Light 2 at 1080p. For reference, the GTX 1060 that’s six years old and the most popular GPU on Steam, was 110% faster in Dying Light 2 at 1080p based on TechPowerUp’s tests. That’s downright embarrassing.

Recommended Videos

We knew the GTX 1630 was a bad idea the moment rumors started coming out. It’s built on Nvidia’s last-gen Turing architecture, which didn’t launch in the best state. Nvidia released Super variants less than a year after the initial range launched, and that was three years ago.

Get your weekly teardown of the tech behind PC gaming
Check your inbox!

The GTX 1630 significantly cuts back the specs, too. Compared to GTX 16-series cards, which Nvidia hasn’t revisited in over two years, the GTX 1630 has 43% fewer cores than the next step up (the GTX 1650). It also has half of the memory bandwidth due to a 64-bit bus, vastly limiting the card’s potential in older systems.

Price is another major problem. Although rumors suggested $150 was the price for models in the U.S., EVGA’s first GTX 1630 is listed for $200. With GPU prices where they are now, you can purchase a brand-new RX 6500 XT for less money. And despite the fact that we called it one of the worst tech products of the year in our RX 6500 XT review, it’s still twice as fast as the GTX 1630.

Given the results we’ve seen so far, there is no reason to buy the GTX 1630. New options are few and far between, but you can pick up the RX 470 for as little as $60 on eBay — a fourth of what some GTX 1630 models are selling for. That won’t lock you out of features, either. Unlike Nvidia’s latest GPUs, the GTX 1630 doesn’t support ray tracing or Deep Learning Super Sampling (DLSS).

The card could be an option if you’re sitting on a budget GPU from multiple generations back. It’s a step up from the GT 1030, and it’s faster than some GPU deals you’ll find for cards like the GT 710 and Radeon 5450. Still, there are multiple options around the same price as the GTX 1630 that are almost universally twice as fast (or more).

Jacob Roach
Lead Reporter, PC Hardware
Jacob Roach is the lead reporter for PC hardware at Digital Trends. In addition to covering the latest PC components, from…
AMD’s new feature doubled my frame rate with a single click
RX 7900 XTX installed in a test bench.

AMD did exactly what I hoped it would do. Its Fluid Motion Frames feature, referred to as AFMF, originally promised a way to add frame generation to virtually any game. There was just one problem -- AFMF was bad. Really bad. Now, AMD is taking another swing at driver-level frame generation with AFMF 2, which works in any game for any of AMD's RX 6000 or RX 7000 graphics cards.

The new version takes a lot of cues from Lossless Scaling, a $7 Steam app that has catapulted in popularity over the past few months due to its ability to add frame generation to any game. AMD is now able to provide a similar level of quality, and with some clear upsides over Lossless Scaling if you own one of AMD's best graphics cards.
What's new here?

Read more
AMD’s new Ryzen 9000 CPU gets beaten by an unexpected rival
The Ryzen 7 7800X3D installed in a motherboard.

AMD's new Ryzen 9000 CPUs are releasing in a little over a week, and the first review has already been posted. SaddyTech posted a video taking a look at the 12-core Ryzen 9 9900X in a slate of games, and there's some bad news for AMD. Across titles, last generation's Ryzen 7 7800X3D is faster.

There are minor differences in some games, but others show a massive lead for AMD's last-gen CPU. In Alan Wake 2 at 1080p, for example, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D and Ryzen 9 9900X are within two frames of each other. However, in The Last of Us Part One, SaddyTech showed that the Ryzen 7 7800X3D is 18% ahead at 1080p. And in Fornite, it's 16% ahead.

Read more
AMD may lose a golden opportunity to beat Nvidia this year
AMD logo on the RX 7800 XT graphics card.

A year and a half after the launch of RDNA 3, AMD's graphics card lineup has grown a little stagnant -- as has Nvidia's. We're all waiting for a new generation, and according to previous leaks, AMD was getting ready to release RDNA 4 later this year. Except that now, we're hearing that it might not happen until CES 2025, which is still six months away.

Launching the new GPUs in the first quarter of 2025 is a decision that could easily backfire, and it's never been more important for AMD to get the timing right. In fact, if AMD really decides to wait until January 2025 to unveil RDNA 4, it'll miss out on a huge opportunity to beat Nvidia.
There's never been a better time
Who's a PC hardware enthusiast's best friend during the period between one generation of GPUs and the next? Various leakers, of course. Without them, we'd be kept in the dark for months on end.

Read more